Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Paranormal Activity 4
<strong>Directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Katie Featherston
Kathryn Newton
Matt Shively
Alexondra Lee
Brady Allen
Aiden Lovekamp
Stephen Dunham
Sprague Grayden</em>​

Remember little Hunter from part 2? In case you’ve forgotten he was the baby, Katie’s nephew, whom she abducted while evidently possessed by the demon that just doesn’t like their family. Sorry about spoiling if for anyone who hasn’t seen it. After the prequel that was part 3, we’re back to continuing the saga. As the movie’s tagline tells us, “all the activity has been leading to this.” After the opening scene of <em>Paranormal Activity 4</em> shows you exactly what I’ve just told you, we skip a few years and to a new neighborhood. We also center on a new family. This time around, our conduit is the family’s teenage daughter Alex (Newton). She’s the only person living in the house who has a clue. Much of the movie is viewed through the webcam on her laptop. We see the rest through various cameras on the family’s multiple devices including their Xbox 360. The rest of the clan is made up of little brother Wyatt (Lovekamp), too young to really suspect anything and their equally oblivious mom Holly (Lee) and dad Doug (Dunham). The only other person aware of the strange happenings is Alex’s platonic, but always present and hopeful pal Ben (Shively). Thanks to him, we actually have a movie to watch. He’s the one that rigs all the cameras to constantly record.

Things progress as they must in the Paranormal Activity universe, slowly. In fact, things don’t start happening for quite awhile. They pick up once Wyatt gets a new playmate. That would be Robbie (Allen), the odd little boy who just moved in across the street with his mom and wanders the neighborhood late at night. He’s fond of Alex’s old tree house. Evidently, his mom becomes ill and, with nowhere else to go, guess who takes him in for a few days. Yup. That’s when the activity begins.

If you’re one of those people who show up at the franchise’s midnight premiers, chances are you’ll love this installment. If you’re one of those that think the whole series has been rubbish to this point, nothing here will change your mind. For the rest of us it’s a hard movie to judge. It’s better than part 2, which it is a direct sequel to, and part 3, the prequel. It advances the story and infusion of a new family gives the proceedings a much need shot in the arm. The ghostly tricks feel fresher even though a number of them are the same. There are a few ones including the garage scene which is just brilliant. The use of laptops also gives us a slightly different perspective on things.

On the other hand, there is a massive plothole that walks around all movie and seriously needs explaining. If you can get past that, or just don’t recognize it, you’ll probably enjoy <em>PA4</em> very much. If you can’t you’ll be busy wondering how and why we even got to the point where the movie starts. It would have to be something beyond contrived. Even with it’s issues, I’d still say this is the best of the series other than the original.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Warm Bodies
<strong>Directed by Jonathan Levine.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Nicholas Hoult
Teresa Palmer
Rob Corddry
John Malkovich
Dave Franco
Analeigh Tipton
Cory Hardrict</em>​

The zombie apocalypse has already happened. R (Hoult) doesn’t remember quite how. All he knows is that he’s been a corpse as long as he can recall and that he thinks his name started with the letter ‘r’. He’s a bit different than most of his kind. He’s fully aware of what he, is and what’s going on around him, evidenced by the running dialogue in his head that serves as our narration, even though he has the physical limitations of other corpses. He groans, stares, occasionally utters a word or two, and generally walks pretty slow. And yes, he eats people, particularly their brains. While out on a food run, he meets human girl Julie (Palmer) and instantly falls in love. The feeling is made stronger by the fact he’s just eaten her boyfriend’s brain which gives R the lad’s memories. Naturally, many of these include Julie. Against his better judgment, he saves her life and takes her back to the airport where he and lots of other corpses wander around all day. Romance budding against the backdrop of the war between the living and the undead ensues.

<em>Warm Bodies</em> manages to successfully subvert zombie lore while simultaneously embracing it. For one, the zombies themselves aren’t completely mindless. They’re not anywhere near as lucid as R, but there is a thought process taking place, albeit slowly, but it’s there. Helping this not feel like a slap in the face of George A. Romero is the inclusion of the Boneys. They are the walking skeletons we’re told every corpse becomes, sooner or later. When this happens, they will truly be devoid of any thoughts other than how to get their next meal. It’s a classic case of using an even more despicable villain in order to make a questionable protagonist seem like a good guy. Combined with R’s oh-so-normal late teen/early twenty-something male sensibilities and confliction over his state of being, it works wonders.

Since I mentioned genre god George A. Romero, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also note that zombie films are historically the most thinly veiled metaphors for what’s going on in current society. Whether intentional or not, this one provides a commentary on how the ceaselessly increasing presence of social media is eroding our face-to-face social skills. At least I read it that way. The final scene of the movie seems to echo that sentiment and make a plea to us in the audience.

Symbolism aside, our enjoyment of <em>WB</em> is enhanced by the way our romance is written. R comes across as a socially awkward, but really trying young man. His efforts to impress Julie are similar to what many a boy has done, and will do, to win over a girl. This makes him likable. More importantly, we understand why Julie likes him. This is in stark contrast to one of the biggest problems plaguing the recently concluded <em>Twilight</em> series. In that, Edward Cullen is so brooding and anti-social he seems on the verge of becoming an abusive partner. After all, the gift he keeps promising Bella is death. Bella is so constantly depressed she appears to be looking for someone to commiserate with. Her fascination with Edward plays like an unhealthy obsession, a true fatal attraction. That’s not the case in <em>Warm Bodies</em>. Here, we have two people in an extraordinary situation, but neither appears to be looking for a way out of life. Contrarily, Julie wants nothing more than to keep living. R’s biggest desire is to feel alive. Despite the prevalence of death in their society, in many guises, Julie is vibrant and R aspires to be.

In the ever-expanding ocean of <em>Romeo and Juliet</em> inspired romances, this has to be among the most unique. Our Romeo is a pale, dead-eyed thing with real issues expressing his feelings, yet we understand him just the same. However, a well done love story is not the only thing propelling this movie. It’s also a tasty slice of dark humor. The jokes themselves aren’t often morbid, but enhanced by the morbidity of the situation. Corpses trying to communicate elicits enough laughter on its own. There are also R’s thoughts. Through all of this, <em>WB</em> congeals into a potent mix of comedy and carnage. Add the fact that our tale is, literally for some characters, a heart-warming one, and we get a zombie flick that appeals to fans of the genre and to those who don’t necessarily go for that sort of thing.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Silent House
<strong>Directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 86 minutes.
Cast:
Elizabeth Olsen
Adam Treese
Eric Sheffer Stevens
Julia Taylor Ross
Adam Barnett
Haley Murphy</em>​

Sarah (Olsen) is at the summer house her family owns with her father and uncle. They’re packing and patching things up in order to get it ready to sell. Progress is slow, and not helped by the fact that the power is out. You know what that means. Once the sun sets, and the uncle goes out for a bit, Sarah starts hearing all sorts of noises, including footsteps. However, this is no ghost story and those are real footsteps. Maybe. There really is someone uninvited walking around the house. They’ve already given dad the business and now they’re after her. Sarah playing cat and mouse with the intruder ensues.

We’re treated to little more than an hour of Sarah panting, crying, and scurrying from room to room, hiding under tables and around corners, then out of the house when her uncle returns, as her tormentor slowly searches for her. The methodical thump of footsteps and the surprisingly unnerving sound of an old school Polaroid camera are very effective creating a sense of pending doom. It helps that Olsen’s performance really sells it all. On occasion, it feels repetitive. How many times can the boogeyman just miss our heroine before we begin to feel he’ll never catch her?

Thankfully, some other things start happening. Namely, Sarah starts seeing more stuff. They seem random, at first, but definitely advance the plot. To this end, there is also the happy-go-lucky neighbor whom she use play with as a child, but can’t really remember. When all becomes clear is the viewer’s moment of truth. You’ll either label it genius and proclaim this one of the best horror movies in recent memory, or think it’s downright dumb and a waste of time. Those in the camp of the former will likely pull out all of their dime store psychology to explain it to people in the latter. Whichever way you lean, just don’t come into <em>Silent House</em> thinking you’re going to see a bunch of dead teenagers with hacked off body parts. It uses whatever surface thrills it has early, but leads to something for us to ponder, not some grand blood bath. I personally lean toward genius, but realize it’s probably a love-it or hate-it type of flick.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
<strong>Directed by Timur Bekmambetov.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Benjamin Walker
Dominic Cooper
Mary Elizabeth Winstead
Anthony Mackie
Jimmi Simpson
Rufus Sewell
Marton Csokas
Erin Wasson
Jaqueline Fleming
John Rothman
Alan Tudyk</em>​

So you think you know all about Abraham Lincoln (Walker), don't you? I betcha didn't know he was a vampire hunter? Me neither. As the story goes, his mother was killed by a vampire when Abe was just a little boy. One thing leads to another and Honest Abe eventually finds himself under the tutelage of Henry Sturges (Cooper). After getting coached up in the ways of killing blood-suckers, our hero starts taking out all the local vermin in hopes of eventually getting to the one that made a meal out of his mom. Well, Abe soon finds out that his adversaries not only want to control the country, but slavery has provided the monsters with easy pickings. When faced with the seemingly impossible task of stopping an unstoppable enemy what else is a vampire hunter to do but run for President?

As ludicrous as it sounds, I’m actually rather accepting of the premise. After all, you don’t go into Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter expecting an accurate re-telling of our nation’s history. Still, the movie doesn't quite deliver what the title promises. Don’t get me wrong, Lincoln does plenty of vampire hunting and killing. The problem is it’s strikes a rather joyless tone as if it really were recounting a somber episode from our collective past. Maybe it’s my fault for reading too much into the title, or for not reading the novel this movie is based on, but I was expecting something more fun. I thought I was going to get a movie that understands how silly it is and just goes for broke right out the chute. Instead, I got a film that gives a serious effort at making its goofy plot work.

The filmmakers are to be commended for giving it a go. Unfortunately, the story doesn't hold together well enough to pull it off. The revenge motif that starts things is typical. It’s transition from personal vendetta to country saving mission is clunky. The big twist regarding one of Abe’s pals is telegraphed from the moment we meet this person. The Mary Todd (Winstead) storyline is awkward. Finally, Harriet Tubman (Fleming) is shoehorned in merely for the sake of including her. There is no context provided as to why she is of any importance for viewers who may not have a clue about her. As if to emphasize she’s in the movie, other characters keep calling her by her full name.

As fast and loose as AL: VH is with the historical side of things, it is with vampire lore. For starters, it gets into <em>Twilight</em> territory with regards to daylight. Thankfully, there’s no sparkling but the sun is no issue. Why it isn't is less than halfheartedly explained away. Don’t look for anything about crosses, wooden stakes, or holy water to be mentioned, either. Instead, we steal from werewolves and make silver their lone weakness. Of course, this is so that Abe can wield an axe with a silver-tipped blade.

Honestly, the axe gives us whatever enjoyment there is to be derived from sitting through AL: VH. It’s a sick weapon (sick the way the young’uns say it, geezers). It does all sorts of cool stuff. Therefore, the movie is at its best when it dispenses with everything except Abe in his axe-twirling, vamp killing glory. His fight scenes are fun and contain some interesting visuals. Some of the battle scenes between union troops and vampires dressed as confederates are solid as well. The climax, involving a train, is interesting but too predictable to carry a real charge.

In the end, AL: VH is a movie where whether you like it or not depends entirely on how much weight you give the action scenes. It’s too-serious tone invites us to pay attention to the story, but that part of the movie bogs down under the strain of trying to mix real history with pure fantasy. Had it not undertaken that massive task, simply put its tongue in its cheek and shown some self-awareness it could’ve been a campy cult classic. Instead, it’s just another movie whose ambition outreaches its ability.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Innkeepers
<strong>Directed by Ti West.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 101 minutes.
Cast:
Sara Paxton
Pat Healy
Kelly McGillis
Alison Bartlett
Jake Ryan
Lena Dunham
George Riddle
Brenda Cooney
John Speredakos</em>​

An old, stale hotel on the last weekend it will ever be in business, with only a few people around, seems as good a place as any for a good haunted house flick. ENGH! Wrong answer. At least in this case. I’m not sure there are any right answers in the 100 plus minutes we spend in this drab setting. By drab, I don’t mean anything remotely “haunting”, either. I just mean “bleh.”

Things start well enough, I guess. As mentioned, the Yankee Pedlar Inn is going out of business and the owner is wisely on vacation elsewhere. This means we’re stuck with the only two dweebs who work here, Clare (Paxton) and Luke (Healy). For some strange reason, they think they’re Akroyd and Murray back in 1984. Get it? Sigh…kids these days. They think they’re Ghostbusters! He-dweeb spends most of every day tap, tap, tapping on his laptop, designing his website based on “real” paranormal activity. She-dweeb mostly just believes whatever flies out of his pie-hole and agrees to try and record the ghosts in the hotel. By record, I mean audio only, not video. Huh? Whatever. Legend has it that, way back when, a bride hanged herself in one of the rooms because her brand new hubby abandoned her. Instead of using her apparently active afterlife to find that bum and haunt his ass, she knocks around the Inn occasionally going “Woooohhhh” and scaring the guests.

Hey, I've tortured myself once by watching this movie and twice by sitting down to write this review. Consider this your chance to stop reading now. You already know how I feel about this so-called film. Therefore, I’m going to do something constructive while I bang out a few more paragraphs. I’m attempting to take the art of onomatopoeia to new heights, just like this, boom. Didn't you notice ENGH? Bleh? Okay, at least you understood boom. No? Sigh. Grab a dictionary and look up onomatopoeia. Damn, you’re lazy. Just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onomatopoeia">click here</a>. See what I did there? I’m sorry, you’re not lazy, unless you are…screw it.

We left off on guests, right? Hmph, the only paying ones are a lady and her son. We learn she’s pissed at her hubby and punishing him by spending the weekend away. Ha! Judging from her demeanor I’ll bet he’s not feeling so punished. As for the boy, probably about 8, he gets a treat when he gets to see she-dweeb in her undies. Boing! Good for you, child actor. Now, don’t do drugs. Unfortunately for she-dweeb, after a frightening moment (for her anyway) sends her running to he-dweebs room she sees him in his undies. Ladies, trust me when I say this: gag!

Anyhoo, the lady and her son leave and an alcoholic, former actress, current medium arrives. Every haunted house flick has to have one of those. She’s in town for a people-who-talk-to-dead-people convention but of course, gets pulled into the goings on at the hotel. Right before just about every action she knocks back one of those small airline bottles of booze. A little later, some random old dude shows up and yes, he’ll become part of the happenings, also.

What are these happenings, you ask? Whenever she-dweeb is alone (they man the front desk in shifts), she starts hearing stuff knock or clank or wind howling or the piano in the lobby starts playing by itself. At some point during all the commotion, she yanks the recording equipment off the desk and mostly captures herself whimpering. Nice. She finally gets a noise other than from her own body, screams, runs and tells he-dweeb or drunk psychic and then…nothing. Between these scenes, our dweebs have completely inane conversations. Seriously, it’s like “Hey, look at my website and ghosts are real blah blah blah.”

“I totally believe you ‘cuz sometimes people see stuff and blah blah blah.”

Okay, movie, either kill them now or kill me. I’m begging. Hear that? That’s the sound of brain cells oozing out of my ear, splashing to their death on my shoulder so they no longer have to listen to this dreck. I should have known better. Our director, Ti West, also helmed the equally bad and equally overrated House of the Devil. If you see this man anywhere near a movie set, please have the nearest person call 911 then physically restrain him until the cops arrive.

Regardless of my feelings on the matter, The Innkeepers drones on. Sigh. You know the drill. Eventually, he-dweeb picks up on the fact strange crap is really happening and drunk psychic says ‘get out.’ I’m paraphrasing, of course. As for the random old dude, I’ll let you figure it out. Will she-dweeb and he-dweeb escape the dead bride? Will you give a flying fox fleeing from a flock of pheasants? Dun dun dun DUNNNNN!

<strong>MY SCORE: 0/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Mama
<strong>Directed by Andrés Muschietti.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Jessica Chastain
Megan Charpentier
Isabelle Nélisse
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau
Jane Moffat
Daniel Kash
Javier Botet
David Fox
Hannah Cheesman</em>​

Some rather unfortunate events leave two little girls alone in a cabin deep in the woods to fend for themselves. Five years pass until they are discovered by a search party working for their uncle Lucas (Coster-Waldau). It is miraculous that they've survived but, as expected, they’re severely damaged to the point of being animalistic. Victoria (Charpentier), now eight years old, and six year old Lilly (Nélisse) have subsisted on a steady diet of cherries and raised themselves. Sort of. After some intense therapy, Uncle Luke takes the girls in. Also living with him is his girlfriend Annabel (Chastain). The girls are coming along, Victoria much faster than Lilly, but are much more apt to obey Mama, a mysterious figure they often refer to that seems to live in their bedroom closet but no one else has seen. Adults trying to figure who and what Mama is while she/it makes things go bump in the night, and occasionally during the day, ensues.

Thankfully, instead of going the found footage route, Mama is an old-fashioned ghost story. It employs some new-fangled technology, to be sure, but the frights it tries to provide are from an era long since passed. It forgoes the gore in favor of an inferred presence, an ominous score and jump scares. Through these means it creates a foreboding atmosphere that it refuses to turn loose.

Our uneasiness is fostered by a sufficiently worried performance from Jessica Chastain. She provides the audience with a capable conduit as she often voices our feelings on the matters at hand and is the one character rounded just enough for us to care for. That being the case, she highlights the movie’s biggest problem. We have a pretty good idea of what each character is going to say or do, provided we've seen a scary movie or two. Annabel is someone to root for, but isn't really that intriguing. Uncle Lucas gets hurt early on and spends most of the movie in the hospital so he has nothing to do until the finale. Other characters only show up from time to time to explain the plot to us or to die because, you know, horror flicks need that sort of thing. Therefore, all we’re left with is that dread inducing music littered with abrupt noises to startle us.

Early on those old school tactics work pretty well, but they eventually lose power. The story is too paint-by-numbers to sustain the level of terror necessary to keep us truly locked in. Once the legend of Mama first starts to unfold it feels really familiar to us. In fact, it’s not terribly different from The Woman in Black. In short, once we know what’s coming we start to pick it apart. To it’s credit, Mama holds us as long as possible and is, at times, enjoyable. It’s just not quite good enough to stick.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

V/H/S
<strong>Directed by Adam Wingard, David Bruckner, Ti West, Glenn McQuaid, Joe Swanberg, “Radio Silence.”</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Calvin Reeder
Adam Wingard
Kentucker Audley
Sarah Byrne
Hannah Fierman
Mike Donlan
Frank Stack</em>​

A group of wayward twenty-somethings are having fun filming themselves attacking women in parking garages and forcefully exposing their breasts to the camera. Their mothers must be proud. Anyhoo, sales of these videos aren't as lucrative as they’d like. One of them knows about a VHS tape they would be paid handsomely for. Of course, they have to break into someone’s house and steal it. Once there, they discover a dead body and an extensive library of unmarked videotapes to rummage through, spread throughout the house. Of course, only one of these bozos has enough sense to press play on the VCR, even though the TV is already on. While his buddies are digging around in the various piles of tapes, he sits and watches. We watch along with occasional breaks to see how the boys are doing.

Essentially, V/H/S is a collection of vignettes whose only link is that they appear to be on the same tape and that one of the characters is watching them. On top of that, what’s going on in the house where he and his buddies are amounts to another vignette. Therefore, looking for a unifying theme is pointless, unless you count the fact that they’re all twisted. At that, each succeeds. To achieve this we get a vampire (something like a vampire), aliens, and “regular” folk.

Surprisingly, almost all of the shorts work wonderfully. None of them have a plot, per se, they’re more like little slices of the end of life. Very bloody, violent ends. As stated, they’re mostly bent on making you use some variation of the phrase “that’s messed up,” and they do.

Perhaps most notable is that it manages to put a new spin on the found footage sub-genre. Like all the rest of these type of movies, it’s heavily influenced by The Blair Witch Project.” It marries this with its love for other anthologies to give us something that feels fresh and completely unrestrained. Each vignette stretches long enough so we’re never quite sure where things are going. When they get there, our inner sadists will be quite pleased.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Dark Shadows
<strong>Directed Tim Burton.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Johnny Depp
Michelle Pfeiffer
Eva Green
Helena Bonham Carter
Bella Heathcote
Chloë Grace Moretz
Jackie Earle Haley
Jonny Lee Miller
Christopher Lee
Alice Cooper</em>​

In 1972, the Collinses live in a gigantic secluded mansion in Maine that their ancestors built over 200 years earlier. Once extremely wealthy, they now barely manage to pay the bills since the family business isn’t doing so well. Luckily for them, they’re about to get some help. Thought long dead since he lived in the house when it was first built, Barnabus Collins (Depp) rises from his grave. Having been turned into a vampire by Angelique Bouchard (Green), a jilted witch, he has a score to settle. For you young whipper-snappers, this is based on the late 60s/early 70s soap opera of the same name.

We proceed with the normal jokes that follow people reemerging in a time much different than their own. Some are funny, some are not. More consistently humorous, but not overwhelmingly so, is Michelle Pfeiffer’s sarcasm and the (sorta) functional drunkenness of Burton regular Helena Bonham Carter. Both women are superb as is Eva Green in all her cackling witch glory. Chloë Grace Moretz gives a performance that comes across as bizarre. However, I don’t blame her as much as I do the screenplay which doesn’t properly flesh out her character. The one actor I do blame for their lackluster work is the star, Johnny Depp. This is hard for me because I’m pretty much a Depp apologist, but he doesn’t seem to have his heart in this one.

Still, our hero isn't the most noticeable problem with Dark Shadows. More of an issue is how insecure director Tim Burton is in his storytelling. The movie never seems sure of what it wants to be. It takes turns at parody (including of self), family drama, and straight forward horror without the proper meshing of the genres. The seams are clearly visible. As a result, we feel like we’re switching back and forth between several different movies involving the same characters. Any of them could be good but none are allowed to gather enough steam. We never get into the right frame of mind to enjoy it because as soon as we start to settle in there’s an abrupt change in tone and we have to start all over. Other problems include prematurely discarding subplots, especially those of the children, and a werewolf inexplicably popping up out of nowhere.

The magic of the Depp/Burton connection seems to be waning. As mentioned, Depp’s performance is somewhat less than thrilling and the typically goth-chic visuals of Tim Burton feel peculiarly restrained and his narrative is all over the map. Even the star in his trademark white face paint and funny hairdo is now cliché. The last truly excellent effort produced by the pair is 2007’s morbid musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I like their following picture, 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, but that’s a polarizing film. This seems to be likewise.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

]The Awakening
<strong>Directed by Nick Murphy.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 107 minutes
Cast:
Rebecca Hall
Dominic West
Imelda Staunton
Isaac Hempstead Wright
Lucy Cohu
Ian Hanmore
Cal Macaninch
John Shrapnel
Richard Durden</em>​

At the very beginning of The Awakening, we’re filled in on what’s been happening in our setting, early twentieth century London. People have been dying left and right with their demises being blamed on ghosts. Florence Cathcart (Hall) doesn't buy any of this. When we meet her, she’s busting up the operation of some phony medium. She’s also a best-selling author, having written a book definitively concluding there is no such thing as a ghost. Her book is so good, we’re told several times that most people keep it right next to their Bible. This makes zero sense because she clearly states that she has no use for religion, doesn't believe in God, or an after-life of any sort and implies that this is also made transparent in the book. Last I checked, Christians weren't too fond of such declarations, but whatever.

The point of it all is that Florence is hired to investigate the possible existence of a ghost at a boarding school for boys after one of its students has inexplicably died. Naturally, since the class photo from every year shows the same ghostly image, this is thought to be the work of some supernatural force. Within a few short scenes, our heroine solves the mystery of the boy’s death in a way awfully reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo. The only thing missing is her unmasking the villain who then proclaims “I would've gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!” But of course, strange things keep happening and the movie goes on. And on.

The rest of our time is spent is this dreary school watching Florence set traps for the alleged ghost, hearing noises and seeing the fleeting image of a little boy. It should go without saying she tries to follow the lad only to be led, inevitably, to a room with a large dollhouse. When she looks inside she sees the most recent events depicted with startling accuracy. Creepy. Oh, along the way she falls in love with Robert (West), the guy who hired her. She also befriends Maud (Staunton), the lady who seems to do everything inside the building and Tom (Wright), a friendless boy who likes talking to adults.

All told, it’s a very “meh” experience. The biggest problem is, as frightened as Florence gets, she never really appears to be in any danger. She seems to be cracking up, but that’s about it. The only question is whether or not this is a real ghost. Without her life being on the line it doesn't feel like that pressing an issue, either. Rebecca Hall plays the role well, but the situations are a tad benign to draw us to the edge of our seats.

Alas, we find out Florence’s life really is threatened. Here, the movie takes a bizarre turn that includes an attempted rape, single-person ping pong, another trip to the dollhouse and poisoning. This is all welcome because the pace thankfully picks up from the dreadfully slow trudge we've been enduring, even though it doesn't make a bunch of sense. The ending is confusing as we’re sure of one thing, but not another. When the credits roll, it feels like we've watched a rip-off of The Sixth Sense. Judging by that movie’s lofty status with critics and regular folk alike, most of you might feel that’s a good thing. Not to be a contrarian, but I didn't like The Sixth Sense. And since a copy is never as sharp as the original, I like The Awakening even less.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Duel
<strong>Directed by Steven Spielberg.</strong>
<em>1971. Not Rated, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Dennis Weaver
Carey Loftin
Jacqueline Scott
Eddie Firestone
Lou Frizzell
Lucille Benson</em>​

Author Richard Matheson has been living with me lately. Of course I don’t mean this in the literal sense. After all, the man passed away earlier this year. However, his work has taken over my life the last few weeks. This has meant reading I Am Legend for the first time, then watching and re-watching the three official big screen adaptations of that work: The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man, and I Am Legend. That was followed by a return to the text and then picking up my pen to give you the comparative analysis I call 3 Movies, 1 Book: I Am Legend. Why? It sounded like fun at the time. Was it? Yes, up until the time came to create the post. We’ll not go down that path.

We will travel down the road to another Matheson story, “Duel.” This one has its own bit of historical significance. For one, it is the last short story Matheson wrote that makes use of his recurring single man against the odds theme. Second, and most important to the history of American cinema, it is the first movie directed by Steven Spielberg to make it to the big screen. It was first a massively successful made-for-TV movie. A short while after airing, additional footage was shot and it was released in theaters overseas (and also in limited release here in the states). This is the version I am reviewing here.

Like much of Matheson’s work Duel depicts one man trying to survive a dire situation. This time, that situation begins in a way extremely familiar to most of us. While driving on a two-lane highway, on his way to a business meeting, David Mann (Weaver) comes upon a gigantic, slow moving, black smoke spewing, gnarly old tanker truck. When the coast is clear, he zips past the truck and gets back in the proper lane, ahead of the truck. Evidently, this pisses off the truck driver because he returns the favor and then some by refusing to let David get by him. This game of cat-and-mouse escalates rather quickly into the the truck driver trying to kill our hero.

Coming into Duel I knew that it was based on a Matheson story, Spielberg’s first, and that it heavily influenced “so bad it’s awesome” hall-of-famer The Car. Given that last fact, I was prepared for lots of cheesiness and unintentional humor. What surprised me is how effective this movie still is after forty plus years. Things become tense rather quickly and remain that way throughout. As it rolls along, we’re constantly wondering how David is going to shake this guy. More accurately, we wonder if he can shake the truck at all. The scenes of our two vehicles speeding along the highway keep the questions fresh in our minds. It helps tremendously that Spielberg actually shot them racing along a real stretch of road with some interesting topography as opposed to doing it in a studio with moving screens as many movies of the day had done, especially TV movies. This includes shooting the truck in a manner that makes us think it is moving incredibly fast. In fact, all of the film’s best visuals are of the truck including an amazing final shot. Still, like he would employ in Jaws a few years later, it’s what the director doesn't show that rattles us most.

As tense as those chase scenes are, the most nerve-jangling moments happen when our hero is not in his vehicle. The first of these is the diner scene. David knows that one of the other patrons is his assailant, but not which one. Later, David is reluctantly trying to help a stranded school bus while worrying about that tanker. Lastly, there is the scene where he stops at a gas station and tries to call for help. All of these work perfectly as linking scenes between the car chases. They amp up the tension rather than giving us a break.

The years have actually been kind to Duel. It has aged pretty well. Though some of the dialogue, played as thoughts from David’s head, come across as a bit hokey, Dennis Weaver’s performance is still an excellent avenue for our fears (memories?) of such a predicament. As long as there are people who feel invincible behind the wheel of whatever they are driving, this type of experience will always be with us. Aside from the model of David’s car, and how resilient it is, the most dated thing is the lack of cell phones. Having them would change or eliminate some scenes and may weaken the overall product. Not having them adds to the sense of isolation felt by our protagonist. Given the medium it was made for, and its age, this is a surprisingly gripping piece of American horror rooted in our everyday lives, not supernatural entities.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[Senser81]

Duel
<strong>Directed by Steven Spielberg.</strong>
<em>1971. Not Rated, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Dennis Weaver
Carey Loftin
Jacqueline Scott
Eddie Firestone
Lou Frizzell
Lucille Benson</em>​

Author Richard Matheson has been living with me lately. Of course I don’t mean this in the literal sense. After all, the man passed away earlier this year. However, his work has taken over my life the last few weeks. This has meant reading I Am Legend for the first time, then watching and re-watching the three official big screen adaptations of that work: The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man, and I Am Legend. That was followed by a return to the text and then picking up my pen to give you the comparative analysis I call 3 Movies, 1 Book: I Am Legend. Why? It sounded like fun at the time. Was it? Yes, up until the time came to create the post. We’ll not go down that path.

We will travel down the road to another Matheson story, “Duel.” This one has its own bit of historical significance. For one, it is the last short story Matheson wrote that makes use of his recurring single man against the odds theme. Second, and most important to the history of American cinema, it is the first movie directed by Steven Spielberg to make it to the big screen. It was first a massively successful made-for-TV movie. A short while after airing, additional footage was shot and it was released in theaters overseas (and also in limited release here in the states). This is the version I am reviewing here.

Like much of Matheson’s work Duel depicts one man trying to survive a dire situation. This time, that situation begins in a way extremely familiar to most of us. While driving on a two-lane highway, on his way to a business meeting, David Mann (Weaver) comes upon a gigantic, slow moving, black smoke spewing, gnarly old tanker truck. When the coast is clear, he zips past the truck and gets back in the proper lane, ahead of the truck. Evidently, this pisses off the truck driver because he returns the favor and then some by refusing to let David get by him. This game of cat-and-mouse escalates rather quickly into the the truck driver trying to kill our hero.

Coming into Duel I knew that it was based on a Matheson story, Spielberg’s first, and that it heavily influenced “so bad it’s awesome” hall-of-famer The Car. Given that last fact, I was prepared for lots of cheesiness and unintentional humor. What surprised me is how effective this movie still is after forty plus years. Things become tense rather quickly and remain that way throughout. As it rolls along, we’re constantly wondering how David is going to shake this guy. More accurately, we wonder if he can shake the truck at all. The scenes of our two vehicles speeding along the highway keep the questions fresh in our minds. It helps tremendously that Spielberg actually shot them racing along a real stretch of road with some interesting topography as opposed to doing it in a studio with moving screens as many movies of the day had done, especially TV movies. This includes shooting the truck in a manner that makes us think it is moving incredibly fast. In fact, all of the film’s best visuals are of the truck including an amazing final shot. Still, like he would employ in Jaws a few years later, it’s what the director doesn't show that rattles us most.

As tense as those chase scenes are, the most nerve-jangling moments happen when our hero is not in his vehicle. The first of these is the diner scene. David knows that one of the other patrons is his assailant, but not which one. Later, David is reluctantly trying to help a stranded school bus while worrying about that tanker. Lastly, there is the scene where he stops at a gas station and tries to call for help. All of these work perfectly as linking scenes between the car chases. They amp up the tension rather than giving us a break.

The years have actually been kind to Duel. It has aged pretty well. Though some of the dialogue, played as thoughts from David’s head, come across as a bit hokey, Dennis Weaver’s performance is still an excellent avenue for our fears (memories?) of such a predicament. As long as there are people who feel invincible behind the wheel of whatever they are driving, this type of experience will always be with us. Aside from the model of David’s car, and how resilient it is, the most dated thing is the lack of cell phones. Having them would change or eliminate some scenes and may weaken the overall product. Not having them adds to the sense of isolation felt by our protagonist. Given the medium it was made for, and its age, this is a surprisingly gripping piece of American horror rooted in our everyday lives, not supernatural entities.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

Sometimes the actual event does not live up to the anticipation...this one does. Thanks.

 

[dell71]

The Wicker Man (1973)
<strong>Directed by Robin Hardy.</strong>
<em>1973. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Edward Woodward
Christopher Lee
Diane Cilento
Britt Ekland
Anthony Shaffer
Ingrid Pitt
Lindsay Kemp
Russell Waters
Aubrey Morris
Irene Sunters
Paul Giovanni</em>​

Policeman Sgt. Neil Howie (Woodward) heads out to Summer Isle after receiving an anonymous letter notifying him that a child has gone missing. When he gets there, the locals deny they ever knew this girl existed. However, as he uncovers more and more evidence, their tunes begin to change. In addition, the lifestyle of the natives is offensive to his spirituality. Though they claim to be a devoutly religious group, promiscuity and drunkenness seem to be the two most prevalent behaviors. Often, the locals engage in one and/or the other in public. Sgt. Howie just can’t reconcile this with his own faith. He soon comes to think everyone on the island is stark, raving mad.

The sarge is right. Everyone here is completely bonkers. In fact, the entire movie is nuts. I can honestly say this is one of the most unique viewing experiences I've ever had. For starters, it stops barely shy of being a full-blown musical. Every time I turn around someone breaks into song. These numbers are either plain awful, overtly sexual or both. It doesn't help that the singing leaves a lot to be desired. Then you have to remember this is supposed to be a horror flick. I've seen horror musicals that have worked.Those either skew toward being a comedy or at least are keenly aware of how ridiculous they are and use that to their advantage. The Wicker Man seems strangely oblivious and to take itself more seriously than it should.

Despite it’s odd approach, TWM still delivers an interesting tale. The mystery of the missing girl is a winding path that concludes with a devilish twist. It’s the kind of thing many movies try but can’t get quite right. The reason it works here is two-fold. First, it never tips its hand. When you work back through the movie in your mind, there really are no clues that you missed. However, and this brings us to the second
reason, we don’t feel cheated. In fact, it makes perfect sense given the situation and the people involved. We actually wonder why we didn't see it coming.

In the end, TWM is a goofy movie that succeeds almost in spite of itself. The silliness tests our patience. The rampant debauchery speaks to our basest needs and may either turn us on or off. Regardless, the story keeps dragging us along until we get to the “oh wow” ending.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Wicker Man (2006)
<strong>Directed by Neil LaBute.</strong>
<em>2006. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Nicolas Cage
Ellen Burstyn
Kate Beahan
Frances Conroy
Molly Parker
Leelee Sobieski
Diane Delano</em>​

Police officer Edward Malus (Cage) witnesses a mother and daughter get killed when an out of control eighteen-wheeler smashes into their vehicle during a traffic stop. While on leave following this traumatic event, he receives a letter from his former fiancée Willow (Beahan) letting him know that her daughter is missing somewhere on the Summersisle, where they live. It seems to be a largely self-sufficient and private farming community. Sensing that he may be Willow’s only hope to find her little girl, Edward travels to the island in hopes of saving the day. This is even harder than he imagines because when he gets there no on will admit to having even heard of her. They’re also a really tight-knit cult under the rule of Sister Summersisle (Burstyn). To say Malus is given the run-around is putting it lightly.

The plot’s skeleton is the same as the 1973 original. The flesh surrounding it is something else entirely. In lieu of the wacky approach to story-telling taken by its predecessor, this one favors more conventional methods. It settles into being rather run of the mill with no sense of wonder or fun. Many of the original’s outrageous elements are completely stripped away. The rest is put through a strainer until we’re left with the dried meat of a PG-13 thriller designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

The point of our story is also different. Whereas the original tests our notions of right and wrong, of religion itself, and seems to sling its ending at us from deep left field, the remake narrows its focus and telegraphs its conclusion. By narrowing the focus, I mean things are much more personal for our hero this time around. True, in the older flick his sensibilities are offended by the locals and he searches diligently for answers to his philosophical questions and the whereabouts of the girl. This time, however, he’s connected to the case in such a way that it is simply all about him. This ties into the finale because we can plainly see that all of the goings on are concentrated on his actions and we are occasionally shown women having conversations that spell out their ill will. What happens is that even though the ending plays out similarly in both movies they feel markedly different. As mentioned, the original tackles some rather large and possibly magnanimous themes. This one seems born of a misogyny fueled paranoia about man’s lessening stature in the world, the increasing power of women and the feeling of emasculation it gives to those suffering from its grips.

I’m not one to automatically disparage remakes, but this one really does pale in comparison to the original. That, however, is not its biggest problem. The most pressing issue is that as a standalone film it’s a rather hum-drum experience. It can be easily filed away as yet another picture in which Nicolas Cage is kind of quirky and a bit of a smart-alec. Nothing it does separates it from his rather large pack of terrible movies. You know what? I’m not even blaming him, nor anyone else involved in making this. I’m beyond that, for now. I’m blaming you John or Jane American. That’s right. You. Why? It’s simple. All of the unique qualities of the original were ripped from its predecessor because the powers that be think you can’t handle it and won’t fork over your hard earned bucks to see something that takes the less beaten path. Therefore, instead of something that embraces the oddity that is the first movie, we get this.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Kill List
<strong>Directed by Ben Wheatley.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Neil Maskell
Michael Smiley
MyAnna Buring
Emma Fryer
Ben Crompton
Struan Rodger</em>​

Jay (Maskell) hasn't worked in quite a while and doesn't really want to. Like most guys in that situation, he argues with his wife, Shel (Buring), a lot. Indeed, much of the first act consists of the two of them screaming at one another. Finally, at Shel’s urging, Jay decides to return to work with his best friend Gal (Smiley). It turns out they are hit-men. Gal is the laid-back type, but it is obvious that whatever happened in Kiev has shaken Jay to his core. He’s becoming more and more of a loose cannon likely to kill more than just the person they've been assigned to. Eventually, The Wicker Man breaks out.

That last sentence may seem a bit cryptic, but once you see it you’ll understand, provided you've seen The Wicker Man. Then again, the entire movie is cryptic. If I tried to clarify any of this gibberish I wouldn't be able to keep myself from getting into some serious spoilers. I will say it’s a curious experience with an ending that may baffle you.

Adding to the feeling of bewilderment we may get, the movie slowly morphs into what it wants to be. What starts as a drama about a disintegrating marriage becomes a movie about hit-men and eventually reveals itself to actually be a horror flick. Each of the three acts has the tone of whatever genre it is mimicking at the time. Be aware that when we get to the horror section, the movie isn't so much trying to scare us as it is trying to make us uncomfortable, and finally shock us.

All of this isn't to say Kill List is a bad movie. On the contrary it’s actually an intriguing watch because we desperately want to figure it out. It does a pretty good job drawing us in. We’re concerned for Jay’s deteriorating condition. We’re concerned for the safety of his wife and son as his erratic behavior has put them in jeopardy. We wonder what Gal’s girlfriend has to do with all this. However, the final scene is the fulcrum on which our final decision rests. If you get it, you’re likely to think it’s brilliant. If it just makes you say “huh,” it might totally piss you off.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Collection
<strong>Directed by Marcus Dunstan.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 82 minutes.
Cast:
Emma Fitzpatrick
Josh Stewart
Randall Archer
Christopher McDonald
Lee Tergesen
Shannon Kane
Andre Royo
Erin Way
Tim Griffin
Navi Rawat
Johanna Braddy</em>​

The very existence of The Collection is odd to me. It follows The Collector, a 2009 horror flick that I don’t think was seen enough to justify a sequel. It made less than $8 million at the box office. Granted, it’s budget was some number less, so it made money, but still. Nor was it acclaimed enough for me to understand pushing forward with a second chapter. I guess it helps that some of the people behind the first movie, as well as this one, helped make the ever-popular Saw movies. This all adds up to a shinier, glossier installment, presumably thanks to an expansion of that budget. Full disclosure before we go on: I do not like the original. I find it ridiculous in a bad way as opposed to being so bad it’s awesome. Coming into this one I didn't exactly have my hopes up.

We open on a car crash, beautifully framed from the vehicle’s interior as a dad tells his little girl how much he loves her. Cue opening credits and a bunch of news sound bites filling us in on what our collector has been up to. Mind you, none of this seems to have anything to do with the first movie, or this one. for that matter. Aside from the mere presence of our resident psycho, and one other guy, this is as close as you’ll get to any sort of back-story. No, the other kids didn't damn near kill him in a vicious game of hide-and-seek back in the day, or he didn't get abducted by a rock band and come back a cannibal, the townsfolk didn't kill his dad for taking hearts out of live patients. We get nothing. He’s just some jackass in black mask collecting human body parts. I think. Or lethal bugs. Maybe. Or both. What exactly is in the collection is only referenced in the most vague ways. There are human remains scattered all over his boobie-trapped dwelling, but nothing so organized as to definitively mark it a collection, except the bugs. Let’s move on.

Let’s talk some more about boobie-traps. Like the first movie, this one is built on them. The bad guy has turned an abandoned building into a house of horrors with so much elaborate nastiness I’m inclined to believe he spends far more time designing and building them than collecting anything. There are so many it’s hard to understand how he hasn't accidentally killed himself, or at least lost a digit or two.

Our killer’s most fantastic work is reserved for a public place, of sorts. It’s at an underground nightclub that seems no different than any other except you need to know the secret password to get in. The whole place is rigged with all sorts of sharp objects coming out of the walls. Most impressive is the spinning multi-bladed thing that drops from the ceiling and chops people up something good. This scene is our re-introduction to the character and provides a solid ten minutes or so of pure carnage. It’s truly spectacular. Still, I couldn't help but wonder how at least a dozen people didn't know he was setting all this up. If nothing else it looks like he needed a lot of help to do this stuff.

The end of the club scene gives us our final girl, Elena (Fitzpatrick), and what little plot there is. It’s no spoiler that she’s the it girl since all but one of the few hundred other people in the club die horribly. That one person is Arkin (Stewart). He’s that other guy from the original. He was actually taken to the club in a trunk by the collector and escapes during the mayhem. As expected, Elena turns out to be the little girl from the car crash at the beginning. Her rich dad also survived the auto accident and has hired a team of mercenaries to find his daughter after the massacre at the club. They enlist the help of Arkin, who finds his way back to The Collector’s house in the most contrived manner possible, since he made the trip while stuffed in a trunk. How dad or his goons ever had a clue Elena was at the club in the first place, is still alive, or even know who Arkin is, let alone immediately deducing that he is alive and can help them, is all beyond me. But hey, it’s just a movie, right?

At some point during all this, Arkin tells the crew “he (The Collector) always leaves one alive.” Now, I’m thinking ‘how many mass murders has this guy committed and not been caught?’ Seriously, one guy is repeatedly killing dozens of people at a time, in public venues, it’s all over national news and no one can figure it out? Sigh. I did say this is just a movie, right? The mercs trying to rescue Elena while she tries to escape ensues.

There is no other reason to see this other than the gore on display, which is often quite amazing, to be frank. Members of the search party get offed one by one while various folks The Collector left alive around the building, have more heinous things done to them. So many people are still breathing inside this place it’s like a small town. Again, how many times has he done this? Nevermind. There I go thinking again. Just give it a look if you’re a gore-hound. Skip it if you’re not.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Possession
<strong>Directed by Ole Bornedal.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Kyra Sedgwick
Natasha Calis
Madison Davenport
Matisyahu
Grant Show
Rob LaBelle
Nana Gbewonyo
Anna Hagan
Brenda Crichlow</em>​

Clyde (Morgan) is divorced and gets his two daughters Hannah (Davenport) and Em (Calis) on weekends. While out and about with the young ladies, he stops at a yard sale. While there, Em takes a liking to an old box that dad happily buys for her. She quickly becomes obsessed with this and eventually possessed by the evil spirit that lives within it. Moths, lots of moths ensue.

It’s all fairly typical of the other umpteen thousand rip-offs of The Exorcist. Rarely, if ever, does it deviate from the playbook. Instead, we barrel along while the movie performs the same old song and dance we know so well. The only real question is whether or not Em is going to spew pea soup all over someone and/or rotate her head 360 degrees. Neither of these happen. All kidding aside, our hope for this movie rests on its visuals. Throughout the movie they’re fairly ho-hum with nothing to provide a jolt. There are two exceptions. Both have to do with a hand coming out of Em’s throat. Yup, I said coming out of. Otherwise, it’s all conventional horror stuff. The only thing that might even remotely qualify as original are those two shots I’ve alluded to. One other minor twist is that our demon is apparently of the Jewish faith. Therefore our exorcism is performed by a rabbi. However, changing our clergyman’s costume to include a yamika instead of a collar is of little consequence.

Despite all I’ve said, The Possession isn’t actually terrible. Yes, it’s totally paint-by-numbers. However, it hits its marks fairly well. Those easily susceptible to frights will have cause to jump a couple times. The performances of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Natasha Calis (as Em) are both pretty good. Madison Davenport isn’t bad as the older daughter, either. Honestly though, I’m only mentioning her so that I can tell you that she looks like Lindsay Lohan during the years between The Parent Trap and Mean Girls. All in all, it’s probably a better movie for people who don’t watch much horror. Those of us that do have seen it all before.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Dark Skies
<strong>Directed by Scott Stewart.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Keri Russell
Josh Hamilton
Dakota Goyo
Kadan Rockett
J.K. Simmons
L.J. Benet
Myndy Crist
Rich Hutchman
Josh Stamberg</em>​

The Barrett family is like many others that dot the landscape of Suburban America in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Once prosperous, Daniel (Hamilton) and Lacy (Russell) are now having financial issues which is causing stress in other areas of life. This includes their relationship with their two boys Jesse (Goyo) and Sam (Rockett). What they don’t realize is they’re about to encounter their biggest problem. A string of strange events occur in their home. They are obviously staged by an outsider, but no evidence is left to let anyone know who the culprit might be. In fact, local police think it’s the couple’s own children behaving mischievously. A little harder to explain is why hundreds of birds come flying into their house all at once. Early in the proceedings, we figure out the family is receiving nightly visits from aliens. It takes the Barretts a little longer to catch on.

Even though we know we’re dealing with visitors from outer space, Dark Skies functions much like a haunted house flick. This serves to amplify any uneasy feelings we might have. We know that these beings have sinister motives. We just don’t know what they are. At keeping us interested, the movie is fairly successful. We see the aliens progressively upping the ante and await the inevitable action-packed fate. Our two leads also help in this regard, especially Keri Russell. We can plainly see her edges fraying because she is believable through all of it. Also helping is the great J.K. Simmons. In every movie such as this, the terrorized family has to seek out a so-called expert on their particular phenomenon. Simmons plays that guy. Here, he’s a bit more subdued than normal. This is fitting because he’s a weary, beaten man. In a review of one of Simmons’ movies (I forget which), Roger Ebert says, and I’m paraphrasing, that when you see Simmons in a supporting role you often wind up wishing the whole movie were about him. It’s true here, as well.

Conversely, Dark Skies struggles mightily in other areas. By other areas, I mean almost anything not directly depicting the aliens’ handiwork. It’s all a mess. Things are introduced and dropped or, worse, proven to be preposterous. The most noticeable thing being the family’s supposed money problems. Such a big deal is made of them, as if the movie is going to somehow angle all of this as a metaphor for the economic state of the nation. Any idealistic notions such as that go out the window when it becomes apparent they’re spending all sorts of money that they shouldn't have merely because the plot requires them to have certain things in order to move forward. We, the audience, would be better off never having heard anything about their financial situation. Another is what the authorities are attempting to do because it looks to everyone like Daniel and Lacy are abusing their kids. It’s built up then practically aborted except for some lip service later on. It just never feels like a real threat. In short, the script could use some tightening up.

What winds up happening is this becomes a less than filling movie experience. The alien stuff works fine, clearly the best part of the film, but isn't breaking any new ground. The human aspects fall short. Early on, this doesn't appear to be an issue as we’re gaining empathy for these people. As things progress, they fall apart. This leaves the more successful parts of the movie to try to carry the weight of both halves. This, it cannot do.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Beautiful Creatures
<strong>Directed by Richard LaGravanese.</strong>
<em>2013. Rated PG-13, 124 minutes.
Cast:
Alice Englert
Alden Ehrenreich
Jeremy Irons
Viola Davis
Emma Thompson
Emmy Rossum
Thomas Mann
Margo Martindale
Zoey Deutch
Tiffany Boone
Kyle Gallner</em>​

With vampire, werewolves, and zombies already taken care of in the inter-mortality relationship category, Beautiful Creatures takes on witches. The movie calls them “casters.” Our caster’s name is Lena (Englert). She’s just moved back to Gatlin, South Carolina, and in with her Uncle Macon (Irons). She’s a rather sullen sort, and a couple months shy of her all-important sixteenth birthday. Despite her best efforts to ward off everyone, Ethan (Ehrenreich) falls for her immediately after laying eyes on her. He manages to break down her defenses, but learns she’s got an awful lot on her mind. You see, on that birthday she has coming, she will discover her true nature and whether she’ll be claimed by the light or the dark. In other words, she’ll find out if she will be a good or wicked witch. Complicating things further, falling in love with a mere mortal is know to be an express ticket to the dark side.

As things roll along, we realize this is a good looking movie that desperately wants to say something, but has no idea what that actually is, let alone how to say it. Early on, it appears to argue for science over faith. Gradually, it floats over to the other position rather unconvincingly. It also wants to establish our two lovebirds as intellectuals, but fails that attempt, too. Both are avid readers. Ethan latches on to any novel he can get his hands on with a particular fondness for the work of Kurt Vonnegut. Lena read poetry, especially that of Charles Bukowski. Unfortunately, what they’re gleaming from these texts is unclear. They appear to be reading only as a means to avoid social interaction rather than an intrinsic passion for the written word. It comes off more as a marker of their being different than their classmates and a way for the filmmakers to pretend this film is somehow more intelligent than its contemporaries.

Other things in the narrative are brought up and unceremoniously dropped. Most noticeably, the conflict between our love birds and the popular kids in school never amounts to anything. Perhaps not so coincidentally, this is a major factor in the movie’s debate on religion. That whole thing, which was potentially more interesting than anything else going on, is similarly abandoned. It makes both things feel like they are there merely to pad out the run time.

Continuing the film’s overall messiness are a bunch of performances that are all over the map. As Lena Englert is okay, but unremarkable. Her leading man, Ehrenreich, is all “golly gee,” and very reminiscent of Lucas Black in Friday Night Lights. He is also more annoying than endearing. Unsurprisingly, the more experienced members of the cast fare better, for the most part. Viola Davis is her usually excellent self, bringing much needed depth and gravity to her walking stereotype of a character (the older black woman with supernatural abilities). The problem is she plays is so dead serious it seems she isn't fully aware what type of movie she’s in. On the other hand, Emma Thompson and Emmy Rossum are perfect, hamming it up as our cackling wicked witches. The one real disappointment is the normally great Jeremy Irons. He seems to be worrying more about whether the studio’s check will clear than the fate of his character’s niece. This is most evident in the way his southern accent comes and goes.

This truly is a post-Twilight world. Movie monsters are being wussified and carrying on full-blown relationships with humans at an unprecedented rate. The Twilight movies themselves are not good, according to most adults, myself included. The films they inspire are generally of equal or lesser quality. Occasionally we get a gem like Warm Bodies, but more often than not, we get something like Beautiful Creatures. It is ambitious, pretty to look at, but overly derivative and utterly contrived. Most of its inspirations are easily visible on the screen. Even less discerning viewers will likely notice where it takes from The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and of course, Twilight. However, it does little more than throw those things out there. Transparently stealing from cinema’s past can work well provided the thief is also a skilled chef mixing the existing ingredients with those of his own creation. Quentin Tarantino has made a whole career of this. Here, all those elements are re-purposed enough to form the type of trite narrative the tween and teen girl viewers into this sort of thing might enjoy, but it fails to differentiate itself from most of the other faux-goth romances out there.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Lovely Molly
<strong>Directed by Eduardo Sánchez.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Gretchen Lodge
Johnny Lewis
Alexandra Holden
Ken Arnold
Lauren Lakis
Field Blauvelt
Daniel Ross
Todd Ryan Jones
Alexis Savage</em>​

Molly (Lodge) is a newlywed. With her hubby Tim (Lewis), for reasons never quite clear, she’s moved into the house where she grew up, the house of her deceased parents. Pretty soon, things start going bump in the night. Apparently, something is walking around the house, calling her name, and generally driving her batshit insane. It doesn’t help that Tim is a truck driver often away on long trips for days at a time. While he’s away he sends the local clergy, Pastor Bobby (Blauvelt), over to check on her. Her sister Hannah (Holden) also keeps tabs on her. They’re all worried she’ll go back to using heroin. Molly insists she won’t, and that she’s not crazy, yet she keeps hearing and seeing things. Not surprisingly, she comes apart a little more each day.

This is actually an interesting watch that takes standard haunted house tropes and makes them work. The footsteps, ominous voices, and the like are employed to wonderful effect. Their juxtaposition with the performance of Gretchen Lodge in the lead role is what makes it go. Her mental health is disintegrating in front of our eyes. She really seems to be a woman no longer able to hold it all together. It’s very nice work in a genre not known for attracting the best and brightest stars. She makes all of those regular horror elements spring to life. We really feel that she is in danger. The spiraling story knocks us back on our heels a bit while she draws us into the story.

While watching, we wonder if any of this is “real,” or if Molly is just that far gone. Her actions grow in peculiarity and severity as we roll along. We also desperately want to know what is with her fixation on the mother and daughter who live nearby. Eventually, all hell breaks loose and answers start flying in from every direction. It’s a beautifully twisted final act that doesn’t shy away from depicting what is essentially a breakdown. We think.

Then we get to the final two scenes. Without giving anything away, I’ll just say it all turns into a giant WTF ending. Sure, it’s ambiguous, providing no easy answers so it should be right up my alley. Unfortunately, it’s more confusing than anything and introduces things not previously in the movie. This could work, but it’s a jarring blow to our fundamental understanding of what’s been happening. It’s somehow much more far fetched than anything else that has happened and almost totally undermines what is, up until then, an enjoyable horror experience.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned
<strong>Directed by Brian Thomson.</strong>
<em>2008. Not Rated, 77 minutes.
Cast:
Gregg Aaron Greenberg
Joseph Riker
Zoe Hunter
Trina Analee
Monique Dupree
Kaitlyn Gutkes
Joe Testa
Sean Parker
Lloyd Kaufman</em>​

Chuck (Riker) is about to get married to Michelle (Analee), his high school sweetheart. Fittingly, his bestest buddy Sammy (Greenberg) decides to throw him a weekend long bachelor party. With the help of their creepy friend Gordon (Testa), they have the use of a house in The Hamptons for all the debauchery they can handle. When the strippers/hookers show up, all hell breaks loose. I mean that quite literally because it turns out these are ladies of the evening in more ways than one. Yup, they’re vampires.

Low budget gore fests can be fun. This one, not so much. Too many things are botched that money doesn't account for. Mainly, I’m referring to the horrible writing on display. This might seem a strange complaint from someone willingly sitting through what I've already called a low budget gore fest, but hear me out. Forgiving the clichéd plot, the movie fails to give us either a likable protagonist or a detestable antagonist. The one guy we might sort of like, Chuck, is such a wuss we want to smack him and tell him to grow a pair. The person we’re set up to root for, Sammy, is a jerk. I guess he’s supposed to be cool because he’s an arrogant jock type, but it isn't working. The whole crew, four guys in all, seems to be angling for Hangover vibe, but falls woefully short. Instead, they feel like aggressively homophobic frat boys spouting off a never ending string of bad jokes. I won’t go into who their adversary is even though it will be obvious within seconds of that person’s first appearance. This person isn't exactly instilling fear in those watching. This is made even worse by all the ridiculously bad acting on display. Strike that. It is far worse than that. To call it so is offensive to ridiculously bad actors. The result of neither the good guys nor the bad guys being the least bit compelling is an apathetic viewer.

I know what you’re thinking. No one goes into a movie called Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned looking for an eloquently written script and Oscar worthy performances. What about the girls and the gore? Fair enough. Now, I am of the mindset that there is something beautiful about most women. Such is the case, here. However, I will say these aren't the type of ladies most horn dogs who would pop such a movie into their DVD player will be looking for. That’s aside from the fact there isn't really any stripping going on. Nudity? Yes. Stripping? No. That said, kudos goes to Zoe Hunter who plays the redheaded vampire. Regardless of whether or not you think she’s being exploited, she gives the movie’s best performance by just going for broke. As for the gore, there really isn't that much of it and what’s there is a mixed bag, at best. It’s largely shots of the aftermath of whatever has just happened. If you've seen a few horror movies, this isn't likely to rate very high with you.

The movie obviously wants to be so bad it’s awesome, but its elements of terribleness don’t come together in a manner allowing it to cross that threshold. It’s most unforgivable sin is that it’s far too boring, especially early, for a movie with such a promising title. It never engages us so we’re not likely to remember any of these people ten minutes after it is over. The whole thing feels slapped together without any sort of imagination. Scratch that. There is one bit of imagination: the unexplained ability of the black vampire’s (Dupree) impressively sized and possibly surgically enhanced boobs. Well, it is sort of explained if you check the credits. Her character is listed as “Emerald – the demon boobie vampire.” At least there’s that. Sigh.

<strong>MY SCORE: 2/10</strong>​